Political Decision Making and Agenda Setting in South Africa
Why the Basic Income Grant proposal has not (yet) been accepted by
government in South Africa
Paper presented at the USBIG Conference
24 February 2007
New York
Nadine Schenk
nadineschenk@gmail.com
This paper is based on research that I did for my final thesis in Governance. I am attending the
Utrecht School of Governance at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. I expect to finish my
thesis by the end of May, if you have any suggestions, comments or feedback concerning this
paper please send me an email. You are also welcome to send me an email if you would like
to receive my completed thesis.
Introduction
Within civil society people have been lobbying for a Basic Income Grant (BIG) in South
Africa since it was first tabled by the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) at
the national jobs summit in 1998. Especially after the Committee of Inquiry into a
Comprehensive System of Social Security for South Africa recommended that government
should provide comprehensive social protection by providing universal coverage1, it seemed
that a momentum had been created for the Basic Income Grant to be accepted by government.
However, this did not happen. During my final thesis research I have focussed on the question
why government has not adopted the Basic Income Grant proposal. This question relates to
social security in South Africa, the political system, political decision making and
mechanisms that influence the setting of the governmental agenda. By analysing the course of
the Basic Income Grant proposal up to now, one can distinguish factors that have contributed
to the fact that the proposal did not rise on the decision agenda, and was not accepted. In order
to answer my research question I have made use of interviews and document analysis. The
analysis of the research material is based on Kingdon’s model of agenda setting. This paper
will conclude with how proponents of the BIG proposal could possibly anticipate these
factors, in order to make their campaign more successful.
1
Report of the Committee of Inquiry into a Comprehensive System of Social Security for South Africa,
Transforming the Present Protecting the Future, 2002, page 154
2
1.
Agenda setting and political decision making
The public policy process can traditionally be divided into the following stages: the agenda
setting stage in which a problem is recognised and defined, after this stage possible policy
alternatives are identified, the options are evaluated, there is a policy decision,
implementation of the selected policy option and after certain time, evaluation of the
program.2 Although these stages help in order to analyse the policy process, in reality the
stages are not well defined stages, rather, the stages can overlap and influence the outcome in
other stages. My research focuses on the agenda setting stage, the stage in which possible
policy options are considered and the policy decision stage. The decision making process
itself relates to the choice between the different alternatives for governmental action. 3
Central to my research is the policy steam theory of John Kingdon, Kingdon describes these
different processes as streams of problems, policies and politics, in order for public policy to
come about the three different streams have to meet. When this happens, there are enough
policymakers who are convinced that a certain problem should be addressed by a certain
policy alternative. Kingdon describes certain factors within the streams that can either work as
an impetus or as a constraint. These factors have been used in order to analyse the case of the
Basic Income Grant proposal in South Africa.
An agenda is a list of issues or problems to which people are paying serious attention to, there
are different kinds of agendas, like media agendas or personal agendas. The governmental
agenda is the list of topics or problems that governmental officials and people who are closely
related to these officials are paying serious attention to. Within this agenda there are some
subjects which are up for decision, these issues are placed on the decision agenda. Similarly
there is also a list of policy alternatives to which governmental officials and people related to
these officials are paying attention to. Many people are trying to influence what issues and
alternatives are being considered by governmental officials, but the outcome of the agenda
setting process is far from predictable. Throughout the policy process different processes and
participants are able to push or constrain a problem or alternative on the agenda.4
A policy window is needed in which the streams are coupled and policy is made. An open
policy window stands for a change on the agenda which could be an opportunity for people
who want to push their proposal or problem higher on the agenda. These policy windows are
usually created by occurrences in the problem or political stream. A policy window can be
opened by a pressing problem or a change in the political stream, for instance a change in
administration, change in governmental officials or the national mood. If a problem comes up
through focussing events like disasters and crises, the public expects the government to take
action, if governmental officials agree they have to address the issue, they will turn to the
policy stream to seek a solution. A change in the national mood or the administration also
changes the composition of issues on the agenda, giving way to proposals which are in line
with the issues that have risen on the agenda. Crucial to this process is the policy
entrepreneur, a person who is willing to invest his/her resources to push for an policy
alternative of solution. At the opening of a policy window the policy entrepreneur has to be
2
Parsons, W., Public Policy, 1995, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, page 76-78
Bachrach, P., Baratz, M.S., Power and Poverty, theory and practice, 1970, Oxford University Press, London,
page 39.
4
Kingdon, J.W., Agendas, alternatives, and Public Policies, 2003, Longman, New York, page 3-5
3
3
ready to come forward with a solution to the problem or a policy alternative that is in line
with the issues that are high on the agenda after events in the political stream.5
Participants also have an important role in the agenda setting and decision making process in
the theory of Kingdon. Different participants have different opportunities and abilities to
influence the agenda. The cohesion between different participants is further defined by
Sabatier’s Advocacy Coalition, this theory focuses more on networks that participants form in
order to more successfully pursue their objectives. Sabatier distinguishes policy subsystems as
units of analysis rather than specific governmental institutions. A political subsystem includes
actors from a variety of public and private organisations who are concerned about a certain
policy problem or issue. These actors come from all levels of government, interest groups,
employers, but also journalists and researchers. It includes generators and disseminators of
ideas about a specific policy problem. Some of the actors share critical aspects of their belief
system which is reflected by common believes and objectives, they will form a coalition
within the political subsystem to pursue their common objectives. Within a political
subsystem there are usually two or more coalitions who have different ideas about what
government should do about the problem or issue at hand. The extents to which a coalition
can pursue their objectives depend of their resources. Usually the coalition with the most
resources and members or allies in decision making positions can determine the policy
outcome and is the dominant coalition. However, a policy broker can mediate between the
competing coalitions. Policy change eventually comes about as a function of the competition
within a political subsystem and events outside the political subsystem such as changes in the
governing coalition, changes in the socioeconomic situation, and policy decisions made in
other subsystems.6
5
Kingdon, J.W., Agendas, alternatives, and Public Policies, 2003, Longman, New York, page 165-175
Sabatier, A., Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, 1993,
Westview Press, Boulder Colorado, page 13, 16-20, 29, 35, 36, 55
6
4
2.
The course of the Basic Income Grant proposal in South Africa
After the first free democratic elections of 1994, the newly formed government lead by ANC
president Nelson Mandela was faced with a highly unequal society. In 1994, 61% of Black
South Africans were poor, as to 1% of White South Africans. There was also a big difference
in poverty in rural and urban areas, the poverty rate in rural areas was 71% in 1994.7 At the
time of transition South Africa was faced with high levels of unemployment and large parts of
the population living in (extreme) poverty. However, with a GDP per capita of $ 13,0008
South Africa is not a poor country, but rather a middle income country.
Since 1994 government has committed itself to poverty eradication, and this is translated into
a quite extensive bill of rights in the constitution of South Africa which was adopted in 1996.
Article 27 of the constitution provides everyone in South Africa with the right to have access
to social assistance in case they are unable to provide for themselves and their dependents.
Government has to take appropriate measures, within its available resources, to achieve the
progressive realisation of this right.9
In order to address poverty and inequality government introduced the Reconstruction and
Development Programme (RDP) in 1994, which aimed to combine economic growth and the
reconstruction of the economy with development and poverty alleviation. This programme
had relatively good results in terms of better access to clean water, housing, electrification,
primary health care and public works.10 The content of the RDP had been part of the ANC’s
2004 election manifesto. This policy was replaced by the Growth, Employment and
Redistribution strategy (GEAR) in 1996. The GEAR strategy was drafted by a small team of
experts and presented to parliament as non-negotiable.11 GEAR was a significant shift to the
right, replacing the growth through redistribution of the RDP with growth before
redistribution. GEAR was more market oriented and emphasized on lower deficits, the
rightsizing of government and privatization.12
Government also reformed the formerly racially discriminating social assistance schemes,
which have gradually been extended since 1994. Currently these schemes are made up of
three pillars, the Child Support Grant, for children up to the age of 14, the Old Age Pension,
for women over 60 and men over 65, and the Disability Grant. These grants have proven to
make a significant contribution to poverty alleviation and the wellbeing of the households that
receive the grant. Government has recognized the important role social grants play in
decreasing poverty. Currently there are more than 10 million South Africans who receive
social assistance, compared to 2.9 in 1994, this is a substantial increase. Also, the budget for
social assistance has risen to 70 billion Rand a year, which is 3.4% of GDP. 13
7
South African Department of Social Development, National Report on the Status of Older persons, 1994-2002,
Report to the Second World Assembly on ageing, Madrid, spain april 2002, page 9, see
http://www.welfare.gov.za/Documents/2002/April/FINAL.PDF#search=%22poverty%20rate%20site%3Awww.
welfare.gov.za%22
8
Estimated 2006, see https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sf.html
9
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Article 27.1.C and 27.2
10
Lodge, T., Politics in South Africa, from Mandela to Mbeki, 2002, David Philip, Cape Town, James Curry,
Oxford, page 54, 57, 58
11
Gumede, W.M., Thabo Mbeki and the battle for the soul of the ANC, 2005, Zebra Press, Cape Town, page 133
12
Lodge, T., Politics in South Africa, from Mandela to Mbeki, 2002, David Philip, Cape Town, James Curry,
Oxford, page 25
13
Budget speech 2004 and 2006, Department of Finance, www.treasury.gov.za
5
Despite these policies, there are still large numbers of South Africans living in poverty. Some
researchers are even suggesting that poverty, especially within the lower expenditure classes,
has risen over the period 1999-2002.14 The actual levels of poverty highly depend on the
definition of poverty one uses, but all together one can conclude that poverty hasn’t
substantially declined since 1994.
In 1998 COSATU first officially tabled a Basic Income Grant proposal at the Presidential Job
Summit. This proposal entailed giving every citizen in South Africa an income grant of about
R100 ( +/- € 12) a month. Although the support of this proposal grew rapidly among civil
society, government and business remained reticent on the proposal.15 In 1999 the Department
of Social Development appointed the Committee of Inquiry into a Comprehensive System of
Social Security for South Africa, chaired by Professor Viviene Taylor. The objective of this
committee was to investigate how social security in South Africa could be more
comprehensive and better structured. In 2002 the committee presented its report named
“Transforming the present – protecting the future”. This report contained an extensive
analysis of the current South African Social Security System. It also recommended a range of
policy changes; one of them was the implementation of a Basic Income Grant. As the Taylor
Report states:
“As Analysis indicates that the Basic Income Grant has the potential, more than any other
possible social protection intervention, to reduce poverty and promote human development
and sustainable livelihoods.”16
The support of the BIG proposal grew steadily. In 2001 the Basic Income Grant Coalition was
founded as a platform for advocates of the BIG proposal, aiming to mobilise support for the
implementation of the grant. Numerous organisations joint the Coalition, e.g. the Institute for
Democracy in South Africa (IDSA) , the South African Council of Churches (SACC), the
South African NGO Coalition (SANGOCO) and the South Africa New Economics
Foundation.17 Furthermore, many academics have chosen the BIG proposal as a study and
research subject. Numerous articles have been written by scholars advocating the
implementation of the BIG proposal.18 However, the Basic Income Grant proposal has still
not been accepted by government.
2.1
The problem stream
The overall problem that the Basic Income Grant proposal aims to address is poverty and
inequality, and more concretely income poverty. Government has continuously stated that
poverty eradication is a top priority, it is important to note that the government’s and the BIG
proponent’s objectives are the same: eradication of poverty and decreasing of inequality.
14
See Charles Meth and Rosa Dias, Increases in poverty in South Africa, 1999–2002, Development Southern
Africa Vol. 21, No. 1, March 2004
5 Matisson, H., Seekings, J., Welfare in Wonderland? The Politics of Basic Income Grant in South Africa, 19962002, Paper presented to the BIEN Ninth International Congress, Geneva, September 12-14, 2002, page 9, 10
16 Report of the Committee of Inquiry into a Comprehensive System of Social Security for South Africa,
Transforming the Present Protecting the Future, 2002, page 62
17
See http://www.big.org.za/index.php?option=displaypage&Itemid=57&op=page&SubMenu=
18
See articles by e.g. J. Seekings, H. Bhorat, M. Makino, R. Naidoo, C. Meth and N. Natrass
6
However, their ideas on how to address the problem differs: and I will come to that in the next
section on policy alternatives.
A factor that has worked as a constraint during the policy process of the Basic Income Grant
proposal is the definition of poverty. Defining a condition as a problem implies that one
thinks that the condition is an undesirable situation and that we should do something about
that. Usually the definition of a problem implies a certain policy alternative, for example, if
one would define poverty as a lack of jobs, the policy alternative would be focused on
creating jobs. If one would define poverty as a lack of income, it would be more obvious to
choose the policy alternative of social assistance. The South African government does not
have an official definition of poverty, this might imply that government is acknowledging that
poverty is multi-dynamic and complex. A definition of poverty might not be able to
incorporate the different aspects of poverty like income poverty, poor access to water,
electricity, housing, education, jobs and health services. Governments poverty alleviation
programs have been quite wide ranged, combining public works programs with social
assistance schemes and providing access to water, housing, electricity, education and health
services. With the implementation of GEAR government clearly focused more on facilitating
economic growth as a tool to tackle the problem of poverty. One could say that government
defines poverty more and more in terms of a lack of jobs.
Kingdon also identifies budgets as a factor that might work as a constraint or impetus in the
process of getting a problem on the agenda. This has been very evident in the case of the
Basic Income Grant. In responding to the Basic Income Grant campaign, governmental
officials, including the president and the minister of finance, have repeatedly stated that the
proposal is unaffordable. Over the past few years government has extended the budget for
social assistance, and technically it would be possible to give every citizen a grant of R100
per month. However, this would mean that government would have to either raise more taxes
or cut spending to other programs, and government is not willing to do this. Budgetary
constraints all relate to political will and where government sees its priorities. If government
would really want to implement a policy like a Basic Income Grant, they would find the
money. Budget constraints are interpretable and conceptual, what someone would see as a
reasonable amount to spend in order to pursue the policy outcome, might not be acceptable to
someone else. But it is not uncommon for policy makers to use the budget as an argument for
not accepting a policy that, in reality, it doesn’t want to accept for other reasons.19
When it comes to the problem of poverty, there is no doubt that this problem has been on the
agenda for a very long time. Government has tried to tackle this problem through several
channels. One could argue whether the strategy that government has chosen isthe best policy
alternative and whether these programs could and should have been more extensive. One
could say government is not addressing the problem appropriately or sufficiently, but
government cannot be accused of not addressing the problem of poverty at all.
2.2
The policy stream
Within Kingdon’s theory there is a policy stream, which constitutes the so-called “policy
primeval soup”, within which a certain policy community consisting of experts and specialists
within a certain policy field, generate ideas and policy alternatives. Within the policy
19
Kingdon, J.W., Agendas, alternatives, and Public Policies, 2003, Longman, New York, page 105-108
7
primeval soup new ideas and policy proposals are introduced, but more often, ideas are
combined and modified, until they are ready for the decision making phase, whereas other
ideas simply fade.
There is a continuous process of natural selection going on in the policy primeval soup, but
there are certain criteria that increase the chances of an idea or policy alternative to survive
and to be seriously considered.20
In order for a proposal to stand any chance in the policy primeval soup, it needs an advocate
who is willing to invest his/her resources in terms of time, reputation and energy in order to
push their proposal or idea forward. Kingdon calls these advocates policy entrepreneurs.
Often these policy entrepreneurs advocate proposals because they want to promote certain
values which are incorporated in the proposals. Policy entrepreneurs are also driven by
personal interests, advocating policies in the hope of personal gain, other policy entrepreneurs
are simply in it because they like the game.21 In the case of the Basic Income Grant proposal it
is very evident that a true policy entrepreneur is missing. A lot of different people have
contributed to the BIG campaign over the years, but there hasn’t been a champion who has
continuously advocated the proposal. A lot of respondents have mentioned that the big
difference between the BIG campaign and the TAC campaign22 was the difference in
leadership. The TAC had powerful leaders who were known in communities and who were
able to mobilize people around their policy proposal. The Basic Income Grant campaign had a
lot of hard workers, people lobbying, doing research, but they didn’t have a champion who
was able to continuously push for it. Neither did the BIG campaign had a leader who was able
to mobilize the grassroots.
Policy entrepreneurs try to influence the floating of proposals in the policy primeval soup, one
way to do that is to soften up the policy community and the public as a whole. It simply takes
time for people in the policy community and the public at large to get used to new ideas and
policy proposals. Trying to inform and educate the public about your proposal, it’s logic and
benefits, simply takes time. People have to start thinking along different lines, they have to
talk about the issue in order to create a climate in which the proposal can be accepted.23 This
also implies that if one is lobbying for a certain proposal to be implemented, and the policy is
not implemented, it does not mean that the effort put into the lobbying is in vain. The problem
which the proposal is aiming to address is brought under the attention, it is very important to
get people to talk about the proposal and it’s underlying assumptions. In the case of the Basic
Income Grant, getting the merits of social assistance under the attention of policy makers and
the public may have contributed to the fact that the child support grant was extended to
children up to the age of 14 in 2005. During one of the interviews, the respondent said that
although one may not agree that a Basic Income Grant would be the best way to address
poverty, it is important to voice the arguments for social assistance so that people will stay
aware of it’s importance. Aiming at something that you may never achieve is not necessarily a
waste of time and energy. By advocating your ideas and getting people to talk about it, you
may create sympathy for your ideas. Getting people to change their patterns of thinking is not
easy, it takes persistence and endurance.
Technical feasibility is the first criteria that has to be met in order for an alternative to be
seriously considered. Policy makers have to be convinced that the proposal can be
20
Kingdon, J.W., Agendas, alternatives, and Public Policies, 2003, Longman, New York, page 116-117,
Idem, page 122, 123
22
Treatment Action Campaign, see www.tac.org.za
23
Kingdon, J.W., Agendas, alternatives, and Public Policies, 2003, Longman, New York, page 127-128
21
8
administrated and managed in reality. Technical feasibility relates highly to implementation.24
In the case of the Basic Income Grant, policy makers are not convinced that the policy can be
implemented. Many respondents from government and governmental organisations did not
think that a Basic Income Grant could be successfully implemented. The administration of
social assistance grants was transferred from the provinces to the South African Social
Security Agency (SASSA) in 2004. Equalizing the different administrative systems that the
provinces formerly used poses a challenge to the agency. Furthermore, there are problems
with high levels of fraud and unqualified use of social grants. Some governmental officials
have stated that implementing a new grant would be premature, since there are still so many
problems that need to be solved in relation to the existing grants.
The second criteria for the survival of the policy is value acceptability. The policy alternatives
that the different actors advocate reflect different ideas about the nature and size of the
problem and how they think the problem should be resolved. There is always a normative
foundation for a policy alternative. But in order for a proposal to be seriously considered it
has to be consistent with the values of specialists and policy makers.25 Within the case of the
BIG proposal it was very evident that policy makers within government did not endorse the
ground principles of the Basic Income Grant. Within the policy subsystem two coalitions have
been formed that have very different ideas about how poverty should be addressed. Ultimately
this relates to beliefs about the role and size of both government and the market in society.
With the introduction of GEAR, government evidently moved to stricter fiscal policies,
aiming to keep the deficit down. According to GEAR, development could only take place in a
stable economy, with low budget deficits, low inflation and high economic growth rates. The
benefits of economic growth would trickle down to the poor, lifting them out of poverty.
Attracting foreign investment in order to create jobs was very important in this view.
According to government, job creation is the only sustainable way through which poverty
could be addressed. GEAR is very market oriented, in which the role and size of government
should be relatively small. Within this paradigm extending the budget of social assistance
with approximately R 53 billion26 does not fit in very well.
The third criterion is anticipation of future constraints. In order for a proposal to be seriously
considered, governmental policy makers have to be convinced that the proposal is both
affordable and acceptable to the large public. As mentioned above, the budget can work as a
constraint or as an impetus. If a proposal is consistent with governments values and priorities
and the costs are acceptable for decision makers, the proposal is more likely to be accepted.27
Policy proposals go through a long process of being considered, discussed, revised, tried out
again, revised again, until at some point it is picked out of the policy primeval soup. Since it
takes such a long time to get on the agenda, the proposals that make it onto the agenda are
never unfamiliar to the experts in the policy community.28
24
Kingdon, J.W., Agendas, alternatives, and Public Policies, 2003, Longman, New York, page 131-132
Idem, page 132, 133
26
Population = 44,2 million, times R100, times 12 = 53,04 billion Rand a year
27
Kingdon, J.W., Agendas, alternatives, and Public Policies, 2003, Longman, New York, page 137, 138
28
Idem, page 141
25
9
2.3
The political stream
The political stream partly consists of actors within government, like politicians and
representatives of the people, and factors outside of government, like the national mood and
pressure groups. The national mood relates to the general lines of thought of large groups in
society, one can also refer to the national mood in terms of public opinion or broad social
movements. Change in the national mood has serious implications for the policy agenda and
policy outcomes because politicians and people around government respond to their sense of
national mood. They do this because the national mood has an impact on election results and
the receptiveness of policies accepted by government. People in and around government
might have different perceptions of the national mood.29 Interest groups also try to influence
the perception of the national mood by regularly voicing their views, although these views
might be heard quite frequently, this does not automatically imply that these views are shared
by the general public. In the case of the BIG proposal, it has been quite hard to distinguish a
very outspoken national mood. Government policies tended more to conservatism, of which
GEAR is the most outspoken example. The BIG coalition has tried to mobilize the poor,
going into communities and educating people about the BIG proposal. A critique of the BIG
coalition which was voiced during some of the interviews was that the proponents of the
coalition are not poor themselves. It’s not like the poor are stepping up for themselves
demanding government to meet there constitutional obligations. This raises the question
whether the poor, for whom a Basic Income Grant is meant to help improve their living
conditions, are actually in favour of the BIG proposal. The BIG campaign is not a campaign
which started off at the grass roots level, and it is not very clear to what extend the poor are in
favour of the BIG proposal compared to other poverty eradication policies. This might pose
questions on the legitimacy of the arguments of the BIG proponents. This objection can be
met by putting more emphasis on the grassroots level and social mobilization. The BIG
campaign thus far has focussed on doing research and lobbying government. Government can
ignore these research reports and lobby campaigns, but large groups of people demonstrating
in the streets may be harder to ignore, especially for elected governmental officials. Thus,
mobilizing large groups of people, especially poor people for whom the Basic Income Grant
was actually designed, might be a far better tool to push government to seriously and openly
consider the BIG. When asked what the campaign could improve in order to be more
successful almost all respondents mentioned social mobilization. One respondent mentioned
social mobilization as one of the reasons why the TAC campaign has been so much more
successful than the BIG campaign.
As soon as an issue is on the agenda, organised political forces try to influence the outcome of
the policy to their advantage. In this respect it is important to keep in mind that there are also
many stakeholders who are benefiting from the current situation, and have an interest in
keeping some issues off the agenda.30 The lobby against the Basic Income Grant is less visible
than the lobby in favour of the proposal, however, the opponents have proven to be quite
successful in keeping the status quo. The role of business in the debate around social
assistance has not become very clear throughout my research. Some proponents have argued
that business is in favour of the BIG since it would provide the poor with an income which
would lead to increased spending by the poor. However, other respondents have pointed out
that business has been reluctant towards the BIG proposal. Business is very sensitive to the
29
30
Kingdon, J.W., Agendas, alternatives, and Public Policies, 2003, Longman, New York, page 146, 147, 164
Idem, page 150-153
10
investment climate, and has been very positive towards to the strict fiscal and macroeconomic policies like GEAR. Implementing a policy like BIG would be a huge reform which
would imply an increase in taxes and a stronger role of government in society. Business is
usually not very positive towards these kinds of developments. Furthermore, business is
believed to share the view that poverty can only be reduced by job creation and economic
growth. Although one could say the BIG could also be seen as a tool through which poor
people could educate themselves and more actively look for a job, the general view is that the
BIG is a handout given to poor people to survive. Some people would even say that poor
people are not capable of spending this money wisely, implying that they would only use it on
alcohol and narcotics. Furthermore, the BIG campaign is not the only campaign advocating
for a certain set of policy reforms in order to alleviate poverty. There are campaigns for better
schooling, more skills training, the extension of food programs in schools, better treatment for
people with HIV/Aids, just to name a few. The BIG campaign is not the only player in the
field, and this could work as a constraint. As one proponent mentioned, there are a lot of
people who are positive towards the idea of a Basic Income Grant, but who feel that the
money necessary to implement the grant could better be spent on other programs, for which
they lobby.
Lastly, government plays a very important role in the political stream. Changes in the
composition of parliament can have major implications for the policy agenda. One should also
not underestimate the importance of a change in key personnel in government. Every
president, director-general or committee chair would like to put their stamp upon the policy
direction.31 During the interviews some respondents indicated that with a change in president,
or the minister of finance there might be more chance of the BIG being accepted. Because the
minister of finance and the president have openly spoken out against the BIG proposal,
accepting the proposal could be seen as a political defeat. The more they have spoken out
against it, the higher the political costs to accept it. Another aspect to the BIG case that relates
to this is the fact that the official opposition party, the Democratic Alliance (DA) are also
advocating for a proposal that they call a Basic Income Grant. However, the grant they are
proposing is a means-tested grant aiming to reach the poor. The very nature of the Basic
Income Grant proposal advocated by the organisations of the former BIG Coalition implies
that it’s a universal grant, thus not means-tested. This creates confusion of what the BIG
proposal exactly entails. If government accepts a Basic Income Grant, the DA could claim
this as their victory, which means that the political costs for the ANC to accept a Basic
Income Grant are higher.
Within the South African political system there is one majority party, the ANC, which holds
67% of the seats in parliament, the largest opposition party only holds 14% of the seats,
posing no real threat to the ANC. Government consists of people from the ANC or aligned
organisations like COSATU and the South African Communist Party. Every 5 years the ANC
has a policy conference during which a long term policy direction is being discussed. The
more precise policy discussions take place during the National Executive Committee’s annual
Lekgotla’s in which the program of action for the coming year is discussed. These Lekgotla’s
are not public, only the issues which have been decided on are made public, there is no insight
in the extent to which an issue is discussed or considered. During the interview, all
respondents stated that within the ANC there are different views on where the direction of the
policies should go. There are more conservative elements, and more progressive elements
within the ANC. It seems that the conservative elements prevailed during the last couple of
31
Kingdon, J.W., Agendas, alternatives, and Public Policies, 2003, Longman, New York, page 153, 154
11
years, but it is not impossible for the more progressive elements to gain ground in the future.
A couple of times during the interviews, respondents mentioned that the ANC is quite a
hierarchical party. Going against the official party line is not very well accepted. However in
November 2006 Social Development minister Zola Skweyiya, personally, spoke out in favour
of the Basic Income Grant proposal. He emphasised that he personally feels that “something
like” a Basic Income Grant would be a good way to address poverty in South Africa.32 This
might be a sign that the more progressive elements within the ANC are gaining ground.
The majority of the committee that drafted GEAR were governmental officials within the
department of Finance. This department has been mentioned by all respondents when asked
which elements in government were most reluctant towards increased social spending.
Specifically, the minister of Finance Trevor Manuel has spoken out against the Basic Income
Grant, calling it unaffordable and creating a dependant society. The overall idea within the
treasury is that social spending should be increased incrementally, not jeopardising the current
macro-economic policies which aim to create more jobs. Accepting and implementing a Basic
Income Grant would mean a huge increase in the budget of social spending. Currently the
economy is doing well, but what if there is a downfall in the economy and revenues are
substantially decreased, would the BIG remain affordable in the future. As one respondent
mentioned, if government implemented a Basic Income Grant, it would not be able to take it
away without huge political costs. This all creates an apparent tension between the treasury
and the department of social development. During the next policy conference of the ANC in
December this year the issue of social assistance will most likely be discussed. This event
could create a policy window for proponents of the Basic Income Grant to pursue the
acceptance and implementation of the BIG.
Despite this tension within the ANC, the respondents do not expect the ANC to fall apart or to
lose power in the near future. However, a change of president can have an impact on the
outcome of policies. Mbeki’s second term will come to an end in 2009, it depends highly on
who his successor will be to what extent this event will lead to a change in policy direction.
During the ANC conference in December the new leader of the ANC will be chosen, this
could also create or strengthen a policy window for proponents of the Basic Income Grant.
2.4
Participants
Within the policy process there are many participants who are involved with the policy
process and/or who are trying to influence the policy process and it’s outcome. These
participants can be divided into participants inside and outside government. In the previous
section I have paid some attention to participants inside government and how they can
influence the policy direction. The participants outside of government can be divided into the
following groups: interest groups, academics researchers and consultants, and the media. 33
The Basic Income Grant Coalition, which was founded in 2002, has been the most important
interest group lobbying for a Basic Income Grant. Before the founding of the coalition many
independent interest groups and NGO’s who advocated for the BIG proposal could work
together in a more loose and flexible structure. During the meetings the organisations decided
who should do what, if one had some additional resources these would be available for the
32
Business Day, 10 November 2007, Skweyiya calls for basic income grant for poor, see
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A314449
33
Kingdon, J.W., Agendas, alternatives, and Public Policies, 2003, Longman, New York, page 45-61
12
Basic Income Grant campaign. In 2002 it was decided that the coalition should be founded
and that it needed to have a physical office, and it’s own staff so it would be able to raise
funds on it’s own. Initially it was beneficial to have a physical office but some of the
respondents said they also saw a negative effect of this development. Because the coalition
now had it’s own office, some of the member organisations of the coalition assumed that the
coalition would run the BIG campaign and they stopped investing time, money and manpower
in it. Due to this the founding of a physical office did not have the impact some of the
member organisations thought it would have. The strength of the coalition was further
weakened due to internal problems, which had a negative impact on the campaign. In 2006
the coalition was dissolved and the member organisations are running the campaign again,
incorporating the Basic Income Grant cause in their own advocacy strategies.
When it comes to interest group’s resources Kingdon describes several resources that can
work as an advantage for interest groups. The first resource is the capacity of interest groups
to have an impact on electoral outcomes by mobilizing their grassroots. The second resource
is the ability of the interest group to tie up the economy. The last resource is the cohesion
within the interest groups, it’s ability to convince policy makers that it truly represent the
opinion of their grassroots and that they speak with one voice.34 The Basic Income Grant
Coalition will not be able to tie up the economy and their capacity to influence electoral
outcomes is also limited. But as mentioned above, social mobilization is a powerful tool to
pressurize government. Furthermore, cohesion is something that the proponents of the BIG
proposal should focus on. All former member organisations of the BIG Coalition have their
main priorities elsewhere. For example, one of the respondents mentioned in the interview
that if the child sector would have to choose between a Basic Income Grant or the extension
of the child support grant, they would probably choose the latter. Although this respondent
doesn’t work for the child sector, so the degree of truthfulness isn’t definite, it is true that all
organisations have another main focus area and perspective from which they look at the BIG
proposal. This might create some differences between the priority the different organisations
give to the BIG Campaign, next to their own campaigns and activities. On the other hand, the
fact that so many different organisations support the BIG campaign, could be a reflection of
the broad social basis for the BIG proposal. The main thing is to get these organisations to
work together in a constructive way, and for this a leader who is willing to invest time and
energy is necessary. The importance of a leader or champion has already been mentioned
above. Within the group of proponents of the BIG proposal there is some disagreement of
whether the BIG proposal should be financed through increasing VAT or by increasing
income taxes. This has had a negative effect on the cohesion within the campaign. The BIG
Coalition has published a booklet which contains different ideas and calculations of how to
finance the BIG. This was handed to government, leaving the choice between these finance
mechanisms to government. A dispute on how the grant should be financed could be
destructive for the coalition and the campaign, but the coalition would be able to make a
stronger point if they have a complete proposal, including the mechanism through which to
finance the grant. As one of the opponents of the grant said during an interview, if the
coalition isn’t even sure of how to finance it, how can they expect government to have an idea
about that. And if the costs and ways of financing the grant, including the effects that this
would have on consumer behaviour and the economy at large, are not even clear within the
pro-camp how can you expect government to go for this idea.
34
Kingdon, J.W., Agendas, alternatives, and Public Policies, 2003, Longman, New York, page 51, 52
13
Academics, researchers and consultants are the second group of participants outside of
government who influence the policy process. Within the BIG case, there are quite a few
researchers who have done work on the proposal. However, these researchers and academics
do not all agree with one another. Some of the researchers, academics and consultants share
governments view, focussing more on the market side and economic growth in order to create
jobs, which would decrease poverty. Other researchers see different, better ways of tackling
poverty, and even among researchers and consultants who are positive towards the idea of the
grant there is disagreement on the exact content of the grant and how it should be financed.
This is by no means unusual for any policy proposal but it certainly does not have a positive
impact on the policy course of the BIG proposal. Another aspect that one respondent
mentioned is that most of the researchers who have done research on the BIG proposal and
who are advocating for the grant are often seen as part of the more progressive camp within
academia. Opponents of the grant, who are often more conservative, could use this perception
to question the credibility of the research.
The last group of participants outside of government is the media. The BIG proponents that I
have spoken during my research are very pleased with the amount of coverage that the BIG
proposal has gotten in the media. They were willing to report on events organised by the BIG
Coalition. However, proponents of the BIG proposal have also noticed that after the Taylor
Report was published there was a lot more media coverage for the BIG proposal. This
attention faded again, until the minister of social development spoke out on the BIG in
November 2006.
14
3.
Implications for the Basic Income Grant campaign in South Africa
Considering the course of the BIG proposal thus far, where does that leave the BIG
campaign? First of all, it is important to understand that both government and the proponents
of the BIG proposal are committed to poverty eradication, however, government argues out of
a totally different paradigm than the proponents of the BIG coalition. Government is
focussing very much on the market, arguing that economic growth will create the jobs
necessary to lift people out of poverty. The size of government in society compared to the
market should not be too big, a view also shared and advocated by the Worldbank.
Government has a negative, almost hostile attitude towards extending social assistance, using
words like handouts and dependency. This attitude is thought to be changing, due to the fact
that both the RDP and GEAR have not preformed very well in terms of their own objectives.
Also, governmental officials see the positive effects that the current grant system has.
Most of the BIG proponents do not disagree with government that only jobs can lift people
out of poverty in a sustainable way. However, they point out that the problem is that there are
not enough jobs available, and the jobs which are being created by economic growth are jobs
for which people need certain skills and qualifications. There is a huge mismatch between the
unemployed who are largely uneducated and unskilled, and the jobs that are created through
economic growth, which require skilled employees. According to the BIG proponents, the
poor are not poor because they are lazy or unwilling to work, they are poor because they
cannot find a job, and if they find a job, the job does not pay well enough to meet their basic
needs. Government has implemented Extended Public Works Programs (EPWP) in order to
deal with the high levels of unemployment. But these programs are short term, employing
people for maybe 6 months, after this time, these people are practically just as worse off as
they were before. The EPWP programs are also very expensive and there is a lack of people
to adequately manage them.
Furthermore, government sees grants as handouts to the poor, which will not be able to make
a difference in people lives. According to these lines of thoughts, the money necessary for the
BIG proposal could be better spent on other programs. However, the proponents of the BIG
proposal see grants as developmental tools, which should be incorporated in the country’s
developmental strategy. By enabling people to acquire skills and having some money for
transport to actively look for a job, the grant would have a multiplier effect on the households.
However, even though grants have a multiplier effect, there is no clear evidence that the
money spent on the BIG couldn’t have had a greater poverty alleviating impact had it been
spent on other programs. It is not very surprising that if you give people an extra R100 per
month many people will be lifted above the poverty line. The most important question is: in
the fight against poverty would that R100 per person best be spent giving it directly to the
person, or would poverty better be addressed by investing those resources in education, skills
training, health, housing or crime fighting.
Although proponents of the BIG sometimes refer to the policy as simple, implementing a BIG
would be a huge increase in the spending on social assistance schemes, as well as in its
administration. Accepting the BIG proposal also requires a huge shift in the mindset of people
who are now opposed to the grant.
At the end of the day, when you have a proposal and you want to have it accepted by
government you have to make sure it fits within governments ideology, and the way they see
15
causal beliefs. If your proposal does not fit in you could wait for government to change its
mind, but especially the literature by Sabatier suggests that it is very unlikely for government
to change it’s core beliefs. The second option would be to work out a proposal and wait for
another government to be elected. The last option would be to modify the proposal to make it
fit in better with the ruling ideology.
Although literature suggests that a change in governmental ideology is very unlikely, it is not
impossible. The minister of social development has personally spoken out in favour of the
Basic Income Grant, which has revived the public discussion about the proposal. This could
be an indication that people in government are softening up to the idea of the Basic Income
Grant. At the end of this year, the ANC National Congress might open a policy window for
the Basic Income Grant to be accepted. The change in president in 2009, when Mbeki will
end his second term could strengthen this policy window. When a policy window does open,
the BIG proponents have to be ready to push their ideas forward.
In order to do this they need a leader, a champion who is able to advocate for the grant and to
mobilize the grassroots. The BIG campaign would further be strengthened if there were more
cohesion amongst the proponents of the grant. The campaign should not only have an external
vision but also be inwardly critical. One cannot simply assume that all proponents share the
same views and are advocating the BIG proposal for the same reasons. Some differences
within the coalition are weakening the strength of the campaign, and the proponents need to
find a way to resolve this.
During my research I also found that the term Basic Income Grant is used for different policy
alternatives, which confuses the discussion. The Basic Income Grant version as the DA
advocates it, for instance, is very different from the version advocated by the members of the
former BIG Coalition. The proponents of the BIG have to be very clear on what exactly it is
that they propose and how their proposal is different from the DA’s proposal.
It might be that the events planned at the end of this year may not lead to a policy window. In
this case it would be useful for proponents of the BIG to consider changing their proposal in
order to fit in better with the dominant belief system. The most important change that would
be needed is change in the name of the grant. Besides the fact that there are different versions
of the grant who all carry the same name, the term Basic Income Grant has been stigmatised
too much for it to be accepted by governmental officials. Too many governmental officials
have spoken out against the BIG proposal, accepting it now would involve high political
costs. Also, in a situation where a Basic Income Grant is implemented, it would be claimed as
a victory by the DA, the official opposition. This might keep the ANC from accepting the
grant. A solution to this would be to table another proposal with a different name, one
respondent proposed to call it a food security grant. Accepting a policy like that would
involve considerably less political costs.
During the campaign the proponents should be careful not to alienate governmental officials
by creating an “us versus them” environment. In the past, the differences between the
proponents of the grant and the government have been highlighted, but it’s also important to
emphasize the areas on which government and proponents of the BIG agree. Creating a
hostile environment makes it hard to pursue governmental officials to adopt your proposal.
Another thing that has not been clear to all stakeholders, is the question whether a BIG would
be in addition to the existing grants or whether it would be a replacement (in part) of the
16
existing grants. Even if this point is made clear, some respondents see a danger in accepting a
BIG. They fear that if government adopts this proposal they could use it as a justification to
not invest in other programs, like skills training, education, free health care etcetera. The
proponents of the BIG should be very clear as to how they see this.
Sometimes it may seem that not very much progress is made in a lobbying campaign, and the
objective might seem far away. But the efforts made are usually not in vain, they contribute to
the slow changing of the climate, towards a climate which is more susceptible to the proposal.
When it comes to lobbying, perseverance pays.
17